Ex Parte Sheng et alDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesJul 16, 201211397686 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 16, 2012) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 11/397,686 04/05/2006 Thomas Sheng 3722-0292PUS1 7133 60601 7590 07/16/2012 Muncy, Geissler, Olds & Lowe, PLLC 4000 Legato Road Suite 310 FAIRFAX, VA 22033 EXAMINER KUMAR, KALYANAVENKA K ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3653 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/16/2012 PAPER Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte THOMAS SHENG and CHARLIE CHOU ____________ Appeal 2010-004632 Application 11/397,686 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before JOHN C. KERINS, MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, and JAMES P. CALVE, Administrative Patent Judges. CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of claims 1, 2, and 4-11. App. Br. 4.1 Claim 3 has been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. We REVERSE. 1 Refers to Appeal Brief filed May 27, 2009. Appeal 2010-004632 Application 11/397,686 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claim 1 is representative of the claimed subject matter on appeal: 1. An automatic document feeder assembly, comprising: a scan-sorting unit; and an automatic document feeder electrically connected to the scan-sorting unit, the scan-sorting unit scanning, one by one, front sides of a plurality of originals fed by the automatic document feeder to obtain a plurality of original image signals and sorting, one by one, the original image signals to output a plurality of sorting signals, the automatic document feeder comprising a sheet input tray, a sheet output module and a sheet-feeding mechanism for feeding the originals from the sheet input tray to the sheet output module, wherein: the sheet output module sorts the originals into a plurality of original groups according to the sorting signals and stores the originals according to the original groups; and the scan-sorting unit sorts the original image signals into a plurality of signal groups corresponding to the original groups according to the sorting signals, and stores the original image signals according to the signal groups. REJECTIONS Claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Quine (US 2006/0124512 A1; pub. Jun. 15, 2006). Claims 5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Quine. Claims 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Quine and Lamb (US 4,693,373; iss. Sep. 15, 1987). Appeal 2010-004632 Application 11/397,686 3 ANALYSIS Claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 9, and 11 as anticipated by Quine The Examiner found that Quine discloses an automatic document feeder assembly with a sheet input tray 200, a sheet output module 300-303, a sheet-feeding mechanism for feeding originals from the sheet input tray 200 to the sheet output module 300-303, and a scan-sorting unit that scans the front sides of a plurality of originals fed by the automatic document feeder to obtain a plurality of original image signals and sorts the original image signals into a plurality of signal groups corresponding to the original groups according to sorting signals. Ans. 3-4 (citing para. [0048]). The Examiner also found that Quine stores original image signals as a data file 330 that is used to sort original groups based on information obtained from data file 330 such as thickness, barcode, tachometer, and OCR. Ans. 6-7. Appellants argue that Quine does not disclose a scan-sorting unit that sorts and stores original image signals obtained by scanning the front sides of a plurality of originals fed by an automatic document feeder. App. Br. 10. Appellants also argue that data file 330 is a pre-existing data file that exists before a scanning device of the sorter system is used to scan mail pieces and therefore cannot include original image signals obtained from scanning mail pieces. Reply Br. 2 (citing Fig. 4). Appellants further argue that paragraph [0048] of Quine does not disclose sorting and storing original image signals as the Examiner found (App. Br. 10-11) but instead discloses that thickness sensor 208, camera barcode reader 212, tachometer 213, optical character reader (OCR) 214, and ink-jet printer 216 may not be required when sorter control computer 310 uses a mail run data file to provide information, including sequence, about each mail piece in the magazine 200. Reply Br. 2. Appeal 2010-004632 Application 11/397,686 4 The Examiner has not established by a preponderance of evidence that Quine discloses a scan-sorting unit that scans the front sides of a plurality of originals that are fed by an automatic document feeder to obtain a plurality of original image signals, and sorts and stores the original image signals into a plurality of signal groups that correspond to the original groups. Quine discloses that a mail run data file (MRDF) 330 may be used by sorter control computer 310 to sort mail pieces into delivery point sequence. Paras. [0033, 0048]). However, Quine does not disclose that MRDF 330 comprises any original image signals. Paragraph [0048] states that MRDF 330 may include specific information, including sequence, about each mail piece 202, but does not indicate that the MRDF 330 includes scanned images of the mail pieces 202. The Examiner’s finding that MRDF 330 includes information about thickness, barcode, tachometer, optical character reader (OCR), and ink-jet process (Ans. 6-7) is not supported by Quine, which discloses that existing information about mail pieces may be available as a MRDF 330 but does not disclose that any of the thickness sensor 208, CCD camera 212, speed detector 213, OCR 214, or barcode ink-jet printer 216 are used to create MRDF 330 from mail pieces 202 that are sorted by system 2. Paras. [0033, 0044-0045]; fig. 1. In any case, thickness, speed, and barcodes of mail pieces do not correspond to the claimed original image signals, which are obtained by a scan-sorting unit scanning, one by one, the front sides of a plurality of originals fed by the automatic document feeder. See Spec. 4, l. 8 to 5, l. 22; fig. 1. Quine discloses that a camera 212 and OCR 214 may scan and capture information on the face of each envelope and use the scanned information to determine a zip code and barcode that is printed on each mail piece by ink-jet printer 216. Paras. [0038, 0045]. However, the Examiner Appeal 2010-004632 Application 11/397,686 5 has not identified where Quine discloses that the scanned images for each mail piece are sorted into a plurality of signal groups that correspond to the original groups and are stored according to the signal groups as called for in claim 1. As such, we cannot sustain the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 9, and 11 as anticipated by Quine. We also cannot sustain the rejection of claims 5 and 10 based on Quine or the rejection of claims 6 and 8 based on Quine and Lamb, which does not cure the deficiencies of Quine as to claim 1. DECISION The rejection of claims 1, 2, and 4-11 is REVERSED. REVERSED mls Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation